Twitter Updates

Shock! Horror! Guardian distorts story about Israel

Yesterday, the Guardian carried this story stating that Israel's Defence Ministry was proposing to refuse the same type of compensation payments to the families of the recent Arab victims of a Jewish terrorist as are paid to Jewish victims of Arab terrorists. Chris Greal's article included this quote from an Arab member of the Israeli Knesset:

The decision raises a strong scent of racism, which distinguishes between a Jewish terrorist and an Arab terrorist.

Normblog expressed his dismay at the story, though being Norm, he knows what the Guardian's track record on reporting Israel is, and prefaced his comments with the words If the following report is accurate...

Now Shalom Lappin has come up with an excellent critique which unfortunately languishes in the comments section of quite another story on the Engage web site.

Shalom's comments and supporting information offer a stinging and well deserved denunciation of the report and the agenda of the Guardian and the British press:

McGreal states that “Four Arab Israelis shot dead by a soldier opposed to the closure of the Gaza Strip settlements are not victims of “terror” because their killer was Jewish, Israel’s defence ministry has ruled, and so their families are not entitled to the usual compensation for life. The ministry concluded that the law only recognises terrorism as committed by “organisations hostile to Israel” even though the prime minister, Ariel Sharon, described the killings by Private Eden Nathan Zaada, 19, as “a despicable act by a bloodthirsty terrorist.” …

The defence ministry proposes to pay the families of the Shfaram victims an undisclosed lump sum instead of a lifelong monthly amount.” These claims are correct as far as they go, but the report is, in fact, seriously and deliberately misleading.

McGreal is describing an entirely unacceptable, but longstanding restriction within the law providing for compensation to victims of terrorism that limits full assistance to people attacked by anti-Israel terrorists.

What McGreal neglects to report is that Sharon’s office has now demanded that the law be revised to accord victims of Jewish terrorism the same status as civilians who suffer at the hands of Arab terrorists. Moreover, Yuli Tamir, a Labour MK, has just introduced an amendment to the current law on compensation for victims of terror which would equalize the status of all victims of terrorism.

These facts are reported in an article by Jack Khoury, Akiva Eldar, and Ruth Sinai in Haaretz on August 31 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/619070.html). It is interesting to compare the two pieces. While McGreal focuses his article on the fact that the Ministry of Defence confirmed the discriminatory provisions of the current law and misleadingly presents it as a new development, Khoury, Eldar, and Sinai open with “The Prime Minister’s Office demanded on Wednesday that Attorney General Menachem Mazuz review the issue of recognizing those injured in attacks by Jewish terrorists as terror victims.”, and goes on to decribe the efforts of Israeli and Arab MK’s to change the existing law. This is a clear instance of the dishonest, agenda driven reporting of Israeli affairs that is common in the Guardian, and not a small portion of the British press. It is not less important to report the facts fully, fairly, and correctly than it is to expose injustice and discrimination.

Can we now look forward to seeing the Guardian print a full apology and correction? What do you think? Meanwhile, Shalom's critique deserves to be given wide publicity

And for those of you who are connoisseurs of academic hissy fits, read the full debate on the Sarih Nusseibeh "security wall" story which Engage publicises. You need only read the comments by David Hirsh, a leading light of Engage, to get the full picture of what British academic venom against Israel is, since Engage claims to have led the fight against the defeated AUT boycott motion. Yes, they did fight against the boycott. But only to be able to promote their own line of Israel-is-racist, "Sharon's regime"-is-racist, and above all Israel is to blame for the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

First of all, great blog! Congratulations on it and on the attention you are so quickly getting.

Don't be so hard on David Hirsch and the other Engageniks. Yes, some of what David says might, in isolation, sound like standard leftist Israel-vilification, but you need to look at the whole picture. Israel and Jews everywhere need allies on the Left because that is where most British and European anti-Semitism comes from these days. Engage is one of the few places where unabashed, undisguised Lefties have made it their business to fight anti-Semitism on the Left. That gives them a credibility with all the fashionable Lefty anti-Semites that others can never have. What more you could ask for? I don't count myself as a Lefty at all and much of what the Left says and does apalls me, but battling resurgent anti-Semitism and Israel-hatred is important enough to me that if I have to tolerate a little bit of what looks to me like standard Lefty boilerplate in order to be supportive of an effort aimed at stopping the Sue Blackwells and Mona Bakers and Ken Livingstones of this world, then I'm happy to do so. I, too, disagree with David's characterisation of Israel as "racist" -- and I say so -- but that doesn't make me feel any need to belittle him or Engage. (And who knows, maybe he's even doing it consciously so as not to lose his Lefty creds and with them his effectiveness.) You write that Engage "claims" to have led the fight against the AUT boycott of Israeli Universities. That's ungenerous. Everyone knows that the founders of Engage did lead that effort, and very effectively too. One shouldn't judge someone only by certain of their words while ignoring their deeds. And the world isn't black and white. (Do I need to tell a Jew that?! ;)

Steve M-- Young man, didn't your mother teach you manners? As it happens I am just finishing making my (modesty forbids I should tell you about how good it is) vegetarian chopped liver befoe Shabbos. And didn't you know Jewish mammas invented multi-tasking. I mean, have you never read Eshes Chayil, or something? Feh!

Benjamin-- Young man, didn't your mother teach you manners? Her name is Melanie.

Michel--Thanks for the extended comment. I'll reply further after Shabbos.

Interesting thread - this looks like a great (and very well written) blog in general, and I've added you to my list of blog-links.

I've got an essay on this topic on my own blog, looking at it specifically from a counter-terrorism perspective. It's at http://radlauer.blogspot.com/2005/09/time-for-new-law-compensation-for.html (or, so save some cut-and-paste, http://tinyurl.com/7u2ro )

Shalom invites us to compare and contrast the Guardian piece with this article in Haaretz: www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/619070.html

When we do that we find that none of the facts are in dispute. Most importantly Haaretz reports, ‘In Shfaram the murderer was a Jewish soldier, and therefore is not considered a member of enemy forces’

So Haaretz agrees that under Israeli law Jewish soldiers cannot be terrorists. Haaretz reports allegations by Arab members of the Knesset that Arabs have suffered, ‘Jewish terror - performed against them from nationalistic and racist motives’. These serious allegations are missing from the Guardian report (pro-Israeli bias?).

However, the big difference is that Haaretz leads on a demand from Sharron’s office that the law be reviewed by the attorney general. Read on and we find that Sharron’s office (not Sharron himself) are responding to Arab demands that the law, ‘recognize as victims of terror anyone hurt from “hostile activities by a terror organization,” and not just those hurt by “organizations hostile to Israel.”’

This review is a concession, but Haaretz makes clear that Sharron has not endorsed the proposed change in the law so it is of no real consequence. In any case, demanding a review from one’s own government may be seen as an admission that, as it stands, the law may be racist.

In any case, with none of the facts in dispute, the Guardian piece stands.

"So Haaretz agrees that under Israeli law Jewish soldiers cannot be terrorists."

Well, given that we are talking here about a specific law, the law governing compensation from the National Insurance Institute, I don't think anyone disputes that. The point is the way in which this fact is presented.

"However, the big difference is that Haaretz leads on a demand from Sharron’s [sic] office that the law be reviewed by the attorney general."

Well, that's exactly the point, isn't it? The Guardian's piece makes it seem as if the current law has recently been put in place by the Government, supposedly at the behest of Sharon. Thus Ha'Aretz's piece shows at once this to be a lie: the law has been in place for some time, and Sharon is trying to get it changed. (As Israel is not a dictatorship, he cannot simply change laws by fiat).

"Read on and we find that Sharron’s office (not Sharron himself)..."

Oh come on. Are you seriously suggesting that there is a distinction between the statements and actions of the office of a prime minister, and the statements and actions of the prime minister himself?

"Haaretz makes clear that Sharron [sic] has not endorsed the proposed change in the law so it is of no real consequence. "

So the Prime Minister presses the Justice Minister for an urgent review of the law, following which the Attorney-General is ordered to formulate an amendment to the law, yet it's clear to you that Sharon does not endorse the proposed change? What does he need to do to satisfy you, draft the amendment himself in his own blood? And once again, Israel is a parliamentary democracy, unlike her neighbours, and thus changes to the law are made through the democratic process. Sorry if this doesn't fit in with your prejudices.